This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.

[QUOTE=shlver]What are you talking about? Get out of this thread if you don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]

What? I asked you to present facts to the claims you're posting. You're simply trying to avoid what I'm asking with a weak ass attempt saying another poster doesn't know what they're talking about, when it's more than obvious YOU'RE the one who's in the dark.

So, instead of coming up with a pathetic, lame, laughable response as the one I quoted from you above, maybe you should be ready to bring the facts that support what you're claiming.

No?

:no:

(moron)

[QUOTE=shlver][B]All respectable scientists acknowledge that CO2 emissions have a net positive effect on flux,[/B]
Read. Obviously you don't understand what I'm saying.[/QUOTE]

Again, who are all these "ALL RESPECTABLE SCIENTISTS" you speak of? Please enlighten us, and not just some single article URL from a single scientist who is making this claim.

Who are all these "ALL" respectable scientist you speak of?

The polar bears were in absolutely zero danger of being in danger of extinction 100-150 years ago, however due to the Industrial Revolution it's all a different story... yet you claim all these respectable scientists say otherwise.

[QUOTE=Legend of Josh]Again, who are all these "ALL RESPECTABLE SCIENTISTS" you speak of? Please enlighten us, and not just some single article URL from a single scientist who is making this claim.

Who are all these "ALL" respectable scientist you speak of?

The polar bears were in absolutely zero danger of being in danger of extinction 100-150 years ago, however due to the Industrial Revolution it's all a different story... yet you claim all these respectable scientists say otherwise.[/QUOTE]
This is ****ing hilarious. He has no idea what flux means and how it affects emissivity and he's trying to argue with me. LOL:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :lol :lol :lol :lol

Just for you loj, an increase in flux means less efficient emissivity of thermal energy resulting in higher temperatures to emit the same amount of energy. You were trying to argue with yourself this whole time.:lol

[QUOTE=shlver]Just for you loj, an increase in flux means less efficient emissivity of thermal energy resulting in higher temperatures to emit the same amount of energy. You were trying to argue with yourself this whole time.:lol[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://i.qkme.me/35ol0s.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=bmulls][IMG]http://i.qkme.me/35ol0s.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
It's not even complex, this is intro physics. It's kind of funny that some staunch supporters of anthropogenic climate change don't even know the language of the most well established and elementary fact in the science of climate.

[QUOTE=shlver]Just for you loj, an increase in flux means less efficient emissivity of thermal energy resulting in higher temperatures to emit the same amount of energy. You were trying to argue with yourself this whole time.:lol[/QUOTE]

Well, then just smack me in the face.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Why would humans be the exception when things go extinct? Is that a serious question? Cavemen survived greater climate change than humanity has the ability to cause. And they did it with sticks and stones. Fear mongering isn't only bad when republicans do it.....[/QUOTE]

this is either ignorant or cynical. Sure we will survive - the question is how and who. Some people would have survived a third world war too, but as Einstein said, WW IV would be fought with bow and arrow. We in developed countries are fortunate that we'll likely not be affected the most by climate change, despite contributing most to it. So it's also a question of moral how much effort we put in trying to prevent excessive change.

btw, new report/study is out by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research via World Bank.
[url]http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/climate-change-report-warns-dramatically-warmer-world-century[/url]

some excerpts:

[QUOTE][B]Heat Extremes[/B]

A 4

[QUOTE=Legend of Josh]It's been "below" average here in the state of North Carolina.[/QUOTE]

hence the word "global"

[QUOTE=Nick Young]Where'd you hear this bullshit statistic? Your ass?[/QUOTE]

Yes, the part of my ass that contains the National Academy of Sciences
[url]http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html[/url]

[QUOTE=KevinNYC] 97% of climate scientists.[/QUOTE]

Where is the validation on this number? Some wild call outs are being made in this thread

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Yes, the part of my ass that contains the National Academy of Sciences
[url]http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html[/url][/QUOTE]



- What is that overwelming "97%" :rolleyes: of petition scientists claiming though?...

- are they saying...Human CO2 emissions will cause massive catastrophic warming, [B]It will cause disaster in the near future ruining the world for our children. This warming will lead to massive flooding, drought, wide scale starvation, wars, plagues, melting of the polar ice, flooding of huge areas of the world...???
[/B]

- or Al Gores academy award acting of ...OMG!! 23 feet of sea level rise and polar Ice caps melting!!....everybody will drown.


- [B]Or the "deniers"(what is really happening)[/B] claims that the [B]world seems to have wamed about .6-.7 C over the last century and that may be somewhat due to human activity[/B]....waters lels may rise 15-20 cm ?


- Your "97%" of scientists ( wich only happened to be 400)duplicated thier names and some even faked thier credentials.....

but what are they saying?.....world seems to have wamed about .6-.7 C over the last century and that may be somewhat due to human activity..:confusedshrug:

(opens pocket)

Yes i am quite safe in my bubble and so are you. And if somehow we aren't there is nothing to be done about it now. Global warming is a first world concern and 95% of us don't care either. Some guy in Cambodia working for 70 bucks a week doesn't give a **** what you think about the environment in 160 years and what someone in Italy can do about it.


Its such a bullshit movement. Its .02 percent of the world talking shit on the internet. You aren't going to do a thing because deep down you know you don't matter and would be wasting your life.

You can help save lives in tangible ways today. I try. Idonate to a place called nothing but net which pays for malaria nets for poor people. Not much but i bet its gonna help more than some internet fear mongering by people trying to sound smart pointing out shit I've been told for 20 years.

Talking about ****ing polar bears....

I'm all for polar bears but on a grand scale....eh. I don't see to many woolly rhinos. Many animals designed to flourish during an ice age die when its gone. Part of it may be us. much of it isn't. Either way...give it time shit will be drastically different.

We may make it take less time....but it won't be stopped by us. And most of the world has too many real problems to care what we think about their carbon footprint. And i don't blame them.

Damn, I hope my great great great great great great great great grandchildren will be able to fix this issue...